Re: Peterson's Death Sentence
From: John Fields (jfields_at_austininstruments.com)
Date: 01/29/05
- Previous message: Graham Murray: "Re: Curiousity about setting up home network"
- In reply to: Kevin Aylward: "Re: Peterson's Death Sentence"
- Next in thread: John Woodgate: "Re: Peterson's Death Sentence"
- Reply: John Woodgate: "Re: Peterson's Death Sentence"
- Reply: Willem: "Re: Peterson's Death Sentence"
- Reply: James Knott: "Re: Peterson's Death Sentence"
- Reply: Kevin Aylward: "Re: Peterson's Death Sentence"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Date: Sat, 29 Jan 2005 13:34:03 -0600
On Sat, 29 Jan 2005 15:55:11 GMT, "Kevin Aylward"
<salesEXTRACT@anasoft.co.uk> wrote:
>John Fields wrote:
>> On Fri, 28 Jan 2005 21:05:22 +0000, John Woodgate
>> <jmw@jmwa.demon.contraspam.yuk> wrote:
>>
>>> I read in sci.electronics.design that John Fields
>>> <jfields@austininstrum ents.com> wrote (in
>>> <ue4lv01fl22is149t831nus45049ksn66n@4ax.com>) about 'Peterson's
>>> Death Sentence', on Fri, 28 Jan 2005:
>>>
>>>> Something like that. The rainbow analogy may be a little strained
>>>> unless you consider the colors as an array of discrete wavelengths,
>>>
>>> That seems to me to be completely backwards. The *colour* doesn't
>>> look like discrete wavelengths; it looks like a continuum. Same with
>>> consciousness, unless you define it in such a way that it's limited
>>> to Homo sapiens.
>>
>> ---
>> Yes, that's the point I was trying to make. That "color", even though
>> it may _look_ like a countinuum, really isn't,
>
>Yes it is. Dah...colour is expressed by frequency or wavelength, both of
>which are continuous.
---
Frayed knot. Color is caused by an electron's dropping from one
_discrete_ energy level to another, thus generating a photon which
carries off that quantum of energy and vibrates at a particular
wavelength.
---
>
>>and consciousness, even
>> though it may also look like a continuum is really discrete in that
>> before it can be recognized as consciousness, it must cross some
>> threshold.
>
>This is simply speculation. I disagree completely. There is no evidence
>whatsoever that consciousness has a threshold. There are good arguments
>against such a view.
---
Yet, in an earlier post, you stated:
"Complete nonsense. We only need you be concerned about a "life" after
it has first become *conscious*. Before something becomes conscious it
is no more then a carrot. What *makes* a life, that needs
consideration for its *own* sake, is a brain. Period."
Which seems to indicate that you _do_ consider there to be a period
before which consciousness occurs and a period after. Such being the
case, then there must necessarily be a threshold between the two
states, that threshold being when consciousness occurs.
I don't believe you can support both viewpoints simultaneously, so
when do you suppose you'll waffle back to your earlier so-firmly-held
belief?
--
John Fields
- Previous message: Graham Murray: "Re: Curiousity about setting up home network"
- In reply to: Kevin Aylward: "Re: Peterson's Death Sentence"
- Next in thread: John Woodgate: "Re: Peterson's Death Sentence"
- Reply: John Woodgate: "Re: Peterson's Death Sentence"
- Reply: Willem: "Re: Peterson's Death Sentence"
- Reply: James Knott: "Re: Peterson's Death Sentence"
- Reply: Kevin Aylward: "Re: Peterson's Death Sentence"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Relevant Pages
|